4 ms·

>Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect t

>Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect that deal and not just continue building nukes on the side while using diplomacy to string everyone along that they aren't? You know who else had a deal? Ukraine. Did that deal stop them from being attacked by Russia? Can you stop a military invasion by waving the piece of paper with the deal in the enemy's face? Because that's why nukes are the best insurance policy over deals and why Iran desperately wants them. How can people be so gullible to blindly trust Iran's word thinking a deal means anything?

the_gastropod 8mo ago
> What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.
- reliabilityguy 8mo ago
  Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
  - SimianSci 8mo ago
    You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes. It was a treaty, many concessions existed to ensure both parties were comfortable with the arrangement. But that does not at all suggest that the agreement didnt account for foul play on either side. It was an incredibly solid diplomatic option employed for several years, during which the perpetual "months away from nuclear weapons" rhetoric never proved well-founded. Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      > You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes. But Iran did violate the agreement. The agreement was not just between the US and Iran, it had other parties as well. Yet, when US withdrew, Iran immediately violated it. Why? If they had no goal to pursue military-grade enrichment, why violate the agreement? Biden's admin did not resume the agreement as well due to those violations by Iran. I see this agreement as failure for the reason that it did not prevent in a structural way Iran from acquiring enriched material, with or without violations. > Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives. I do not believe that Iran is interested in diplomacy at all. They were never interested in diplomacy. Why did they fund all these groups around the Middle East if IR is so peaceful?
      - orwin 8mo ago
        No, Iran kept following the accord during almost a year. I think they broke it after a french company got sanctioned in the US (or menaced with sanctions) for dealing with Iran, and french government, as usual, did nothing. Basically acknowledging US laws power over Europe.
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        Iran didn’t. For example, read this NYT article: https://archive.ph/jVJxr https://archive.ph/jVJxr It has plenty of commentary on the subject of how Iran moved its program into the shadows, how Iran concealed equipment, etc.
        orwin 8mo ago
        The NYT also reported the 30k protestors killed number, when the HR watchdog report 7k confirmed, 11k to be confirmed, so at most 18k, which align quite nicely with the numbers OSINT groups found. I'd rather have a paper from non- partisan source.
SimianSci 8mo ago
The two deals you mention are not at all comparable. Ukraine's deal was vague promises with vague consequences, which of course materialized into zero ability to stop a land invasion. The Iranian deal before its destruction was very much concerned with safeguarding against any attempt to "potentially circumvent" and gave auditors alot of freedom to investigate without obstruction. Your partisan posting in regards to the notion of the war being pointless indicate that you're coming more from a place of emotion than logic. I can empathize, but strongly caution that its important we discuss the facts of arguments rather than gesturing that all but you fail to see the light.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >The two deals you mention are not at all comparable That's reddit logic. Do you think invading armies or dictatorship seeking to build nukes to preserve their power, care about the semantics of deals?
  - nozzlegear 8mo ago
    That is some Reddit logic. It is the very semantics of the deals that keep those armies from invading in the first place. Of course they care about them.
nozzlegear 8mo ago
Diplomacy is never a bad thing, war is never inevitable. And allow me to cast some serious aspersions on the idea that the US/Israeli military wouldn't be just as confident performing a decapitation strike on a nuclear Iran.
UncleMeat 8mo ago
The deal was not just "trust Iran." It involved detailed inspections.

the_gastropod 8mo ago

> What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.

reliabilityguy 8mo ago
Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
- SimianSci 8mo ago
  You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes. It was a treaty, many concessions existed to ensure both parties were comfortable with the arrangement. But that does not at all suggest that the agreement didnt account for foul play on either side. It was an incredibly solid diplomatic option employed for several years, during which the perpetual "months away from nuclear weapons" rhetoric never proved well-founded. Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    > You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes. But Iran did violate the agreement. The agreement was not just between the US and Iran, it had other parties as well. Yet, when US withdrew, Iran immediately violated it. Why? If they had no goal to pursue military-grade enrichment, why violate the agreement? Biden's admin did not resume the agreement as well due to those violations by Iran. I see this agreement as failure for the reason that it did not prevent in a structural way Iran from acquiring enriched material, with or without violations. > Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives. I do not believe that Iran is interested in diplomacy at all. They were never interested in diplomacy. Why did they fund all these groups around the Middle East if IR is so peaceful?
    - orwin 8mo ago
      No, Iran kept following the accord during almost a year. I think they broke it after a french company got sanctioned in the US (or menaced with sanctions) for dealing with Iran, and french government, as usual, did nothing. Basically acknowledging US laws power over Europe.
      - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        Iran didn’t. For example, read this NYT article: https://archive.ph/jVJxr https://archive.ph/jVJxr It has plenty of commentary on the subject of how Iran moved its program into the shadows, how Iran concealed equipment, etc.
        orwin 8mo ago
        The NYT also reported the 30k protestors killed number, when the HR watchdog report 7k confirmed, 11k to be confirmed, so at most 18k, which align quite nicely with the numbers OSINT groups found. I'd rather have a paper from non- partisan source.

SimianSci 8mo ago

The two deals you mention are not at all comparable. Ukraine's deal was vague promises with vague consequences, which of course materialized into zero ability to stop a land invasion. The Iranian deal before its destruction was very much concerned with safeguarding against any attempt to "potentially circumvent" and gave auditors alot of freedom to investigate without obstruction. Your partisan posting in regards to the notion of the war being pointless indicate that you're coming more from a place of emotion than logic. I can empathize, but strongly caution that its important we discuss the facts of arguments rather than gesturing that all but you fail to see the light.

joe_mamba 8mo ago
>The two deals you mention are not at all comparable That's reddit logic. Do you think invading armies or dictatorship seeking to build nukes to preserve their power, care about the semantics of deals?
- nozzlegear 8mo ago
  That is some Reddit logic. It is the very semantics of the deals that keep those armies from invading in the first place. Of course they care about them.

nozzlegear 8mo ago

Diplomacy is never a bad thing, war is never inevitable. And allow me to cast some serious aspersions on the idea that the US/Israeli military wouldn't be just as confident performing a decapitation strike on a nuclear Iran.

UncleMeat 8mo ago

The deal was not just "trust Iran." It involved detailed inspections.